Information about the Russian Toponymy of Constantinople in the First Quarter of the 18th Century (Based on the Anthony of Novgorod “Pilgrim’s Book” and “Tale of the Capture of Tsargrad by Frangiane”)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article contains a comparative analysis of the toponymy of Constantinople based on the “Pilgrim’s Book” by Anthony of Novgorod and the anonymous “Tale of the Capture of Tsargrad by Frangiane”. During the analysis, toponyms are divided into those found in each of the texts, despite the fact that they seem to have different localization. It is argued that they have the same localization as objectionable toponyms, and on this basis, it is proved that the Russian Constantinople diaspora of the 13th century had its own system of toponymic terms. Russian toponyms were partof the toponymic tradition, which was carried by the inhabitants of the Russian colony in Constantinople, as well as travelers and pilgrims. The anonymous author “Tale of the Capture of Tsargrad by Frangiane” and Anthony of Novgorod adopted this tradition through contact with its bearers and further conceptualized and textually expressed the urban space of Constantinople in the context of this specific toponymic system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".